On limiting population growth thru contraception

[kama3]

1. The Muslims have an average of 8 children.

Today. The birthrate falls as economic prosperity increases, and this seems to apply universally.

America is at 1.8 before you add the Hispanic immigration, then it is 2.1.

See the issues?

So, ethnic composition of the world in 2100 will be different than in 2011. I can see some countries where this may be a problem, but I do not see how it would hurt the US – it’s supposed to be a “melting pot”, doesn’t it?

Next, one should start looking at the effects of the killing of the unborn on world economics.

Why do you assume that this is not done? Take Russia for example. It has both negative population growth and extremely high abortion rate. But their government does nothing about abortion, and it’s not because of lobbying from Planned Parenthood. The whole business seems completely absurd… until you realize, that ultimately having more citizens requires having to feed them. And they don’t exactly have food overproduction at the current population level.

 

[kama3]

Honestly, I think that one day, the Church will allow the use of contraception for population control. When the population gets to be 100 billion and disease and famine are spreading like wildfire and it is completely unsustainable, it will be the only thing to do unless we want the world to end. Eventually, it will get to that point.

Ultimately, you have to realize the following:

Contraception is a population control measure.
Abortion is a population control measure.

However:

Disease is a population control measure.
Famine is a population control measure.
War is a population control measure.

The first two are (at least somewhat) controllable at the state level. The last three, once let loose, are completely uncontrollable… And the present Church teaching is to completely reject the first two.

Funnily enough, the Church has no problem subscribing to an economic system which is based on usury (which the Scripture condemns) and which will be impossible to sustain once the resource limits are hit. (Arguably, it is already becoming unsustainable due to oil depletion.)

 

[mark_a]

Honestly, I think that one day, the Church will allow the use of contraception for population control. When the population gets to be 100 billion and disease and famine are spreading like wildfire and it is completely unsustainable, it will be the only thing to do unless we want the world to end. Eventually, it will get to that point.

Strange you would use the 100 billion number. I once heard Jimmy Swaggert say that the earth could support 100 billion.

 

[mark_a]

Why do you assume that this is not done? Take Russia for example. It has both negative population growth and extremely high abortion rate. But their government does nothing about abortion, and it’s not because of lobbying from Planned Parenthood. The whole business seems completely absurd… until you realize, that ultimately having more citizens requires having to feed them. And they don’t exactly have food overproduction at the current population level.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I don’t believe the doctrine on contraception to be infallible, and many theologians feel the same way.

But the Church does not. And since Humanae Vitae, I think it highly unlikely it will ever change its policy.

Also note, abortion as a form of contraception was considered a sin, even in early years. Augustine considered abortion a sin (albeit not murder). Abortion was condemned in the Didache, which was written no more than a century after Christ ascended into Heaven. Bede’s Penitential condemned early abortions as sinful, which were considered contraceptive measures in his time.

Indeed, until very recently, first term abortions were considered sinful - but as contraceptive measures, not as murders.

That abortion is still considered sinful is hardly startling news. The implications of such, however, make the Church’s ban on contraception seem consistent.

 

[Spirithound]

…it will be the only thing to do unless we want the world to end. Eventually, it will get to that point.

I would surmise that relatively few species have gone extinct because of overpopulation…

Seriously, the model is overpopulation → disease and famine → massive die-off → stabilization, try again.

 

[LaSainte]

I would surmise that relatively few species have gone extinct because of overpopulation…

Seriously, the model is overpopulation → disease and famine → massive die-off → stabilization, try again.

So we have THAT to look forward to…

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979, #37
Abu: There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility.
Interestingly enough, most people ignore the possibility that this could be the natural order of things.

“Most people” don’t know these facts.

Abu: We have the great advances of great men like American Norman Borlaug who actually lived among people in Asia and Africa and showed them how to benefit from his genetically modified green revolution.
Interesting how we can’t tamper with anything having to do with sex, yet genetic . tampering with our environment is A-OK. All things come with consequences.

Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being. Mankind’s correct use of medicine is to bolster health, prevent and cure disease to sustain and improve his well-being. Contraception breaks the natural law.

LaSainte, #38
I don’t believe the doctrine on contraception to be infallible, and many theologians feel the same way

What theologians “feel”, or anyone else, is irrelevant, but does show their dissent, which is illicit. There is no licit dissent.

Warrior 1979, #39
“Infallible” is a class by itself, and I am very leery when one places moral (not to be confused with matters of faith) issues in that category that doesn’t pertain directly to Christ (Resurrection, Virgin Birth, etc.) or never mentioned by Christ. I can see it being authoritative, but infallible pushes it beyond where my God-given faith can go.

How strange! Real Catholics don’t pick and choose what to believe and they very well know that the Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

It’s simple: Christ gave us His Church to bind on earth as in heaven, which gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God.

Catholics follow Christ when He gave His Church supreme authority, and this is detailed in the infallible dogma in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I – for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) against contraception, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

 

[Abu]

kama3, #42
Funnily enough, the Church has no problem subscribing to an economic system which is based on usury (which the Scripture condemns) and which will be impossible to sustain once the resource limits are hit. (Arguably, it is already becoming unsustainable due to oil depletion.)

Strange confusion about Scripture.

Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).

With free enterprise as developed by the Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”

Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.

Today, the term “usury” is usually reserved for taking excessive (i.e., unusually high for the economic conditions) interest on a loan because of someone’s circumstances: The greed of the lender takes unjust advantage of the weakness or ignorance of the borrower. [See *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor].

 

[Spirithound]

So we have THAT to look forward to…

Sure, but in the grand, hypothetical, collective human consciousness, that’s not nearly as bad as the end of the world. Perhaps the message will even sink in this time.

 

[onmyknees]

“Most people” don’t know these facts.
Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being. Mankind’s correct use of medicine is to bolster health, prevent and cure disease to sustain and improve his well-being. Contraception breaks the natural law.

What theologians “feel”, or anyone else, is irrelevant, but does show their dissent, which is illicit. There is no licit dissent.

How strange! Real Catholics don’t pick and choose what to believe and they very well know that the Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

It’s simple: Christ gave us His Church to bind on earth as in heaven, which gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God.

Catholics follow Christ when He gave His Church supreme authority, and this is detailed in the infallible dogma in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I – for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) against contraception, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

This and the post after this by Abu!!

 

[LaSainte]

“Most people” don’t know these facts.
Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being. Mankind’s correct use of medicine is to bolster health, prevent and cure disease to sustain and improve his well-being. Contraception breaks the natural law.

What theologians “feel”, or anyone else, is irrelevant, but does show their dissent, which is illicit. There is no licit dissent.

How strange! Real Catholics don’t pick and choose what to believe and they very well know that the Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

It’s simple: Christ gave us His Church to bind on earth as in heaven, which gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God.

Catholics follow Christ when He gave His Church supreme authority, and this is detailed in the infallible dogma in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I – for infallibility to be exercised the Pope must teach:
(a) ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter), that is as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians,
(b) speaking with Peter’s apostolic authority to the whole Church,
(c) defining a doctrine of faith and morals.

So the Pope’s ‘ex cathedra’ definitions may be either of revealed dogma, to be believed with divine faith, or of other truths necessary for guarding and expounding revealed truth. Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation. Thus Humanae Vitae (Encyclical) against contraception, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (Apostolic Epistle) on male-only priests, contain infallible definitions, to remove all doubt.

Thus, no dogma has to be affirmed, nor anyone anathematized, nor the word “define” or “definition” be used for an infallible papal teaching – only that the Pope is handing down a certain, decisive judgment that a point of doctrine on faith or morals is true and its contrary false.

Except that the Church’s declaration that contraception is immoral does not fall under something that is “necessary for guarding and expounding” a revealed truth. Thus, it cannot fall under the auspices of infallibility.

The Church most likely doesn’t think so either, otherwise she could always clear this issue up by simply coming out and telling us that this has been infallibly defined and declare it as dogma, considering that it is the single biggest issue of dissent in the Catholic Church today. But this hasn’t happened. I wonder why?

 

[LaSainte]

Sure, but in the grand, hypothetical, collective human consciousness, that’s not nearly as bad as the end of the world. Perhaps the message will even sink in this time.

The message that the Earth can’t support an unlimited number of people and that we can’t just breed like rabbits?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Except that the Church’s declaration that contraception is immoral does not fall under something that is “necessary for guarding and expounding” a revealed truth. Thus, it cannot fall under the auspices of infallibility.

The Church most likely doesn’t think so either, otherwise she could always clear this issue up by simply coming out and telling us that this has been infallibly defined and declare it as dogma, considering that it is the single biggest issue of dissent in the Catholic Church today. But this hasn’t happened. I wonder why?

Infallible or not reversing any opinion on contraception is simply impossible. It would mean admitting that the holy spirit has been on the side of the protestants since the 1930s. It would mean that popes have taught that something perfectly innocuous is a grave matter. it would mean all of the married couples who have sacrificed so much to uphold the teaching have done everything in vain. Infallible or not the Church is all in when it comes to the sinfulness of contraception.

 

[LaSainte]

Infallible or not reversing any opinion on contraception is simply impossible. It would mean admitting that the holy spirit has been on the side of the protestants since the 1930s. It would mean that popes have taught that something perfectly innocuous is a grave matter. it would mean all of the married couples who have sacrificed so much to uphold the teaching have done everything in vain. Infallible or not the Church is all in when it comes to the sinfulness of contraception.

And this, I think, is the root of the problem. Unless it is absolutely forced to, the Church will likely not reverse her stance on this matter because it is an issue of authority.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

And this, I think, is the root of the problem. Unless it is absolutely forced to, the Church will likely not reverse her stance on this matter because it is an issue of authority.

Right. Any advance would be confined to accepting some new technology as not being contraception.

 

[LaSainte]

Right. Any advance would be confined to accepting some new technology as not being contraception.

Yes, agreed. It would be considered an “advancement” or “development” of the doctrine and not an outright reversal of position. Now where are some good Catholoc doctors we can get to develop this new “non-contraceptive contraceptive”? I have many years of fertility left and I don’t trust NFP at all

 

[Spirithound]

The message that the Earth can’t support an unlimited number of people and that we can’t just breed like rabbits?

That’s only part of the message. Chastity is the full answer.

In a medically non-advanced society, large families are prudent, because several of your children are going to die before adulthood. As society becomes more advanced, family size can gradually taper off. It must be gradual because as medicine becomes more advanced, we really do need more people to run the hospital and to specialize properly.

As lives become longer and more productive, people become more prosperous, and as time (be it years, decades, or centuries) goes on, people do not have to work as long to attain a certain level of wealth. This is the key period here, where it either goes right, or it all goes horribly, horribly wrong.

Lives are becoming longer and healthier, and so we need less offspring to maintain our society. If we embrace chastity, we do not engage in contraception or abortion. We use NFP or more extensive abstention; we remain open to life and we have the 2 or 3 children per couple necessary to sustain society. We do not shunt all the breeding responsibility to the lower class, thus leading to the oft-misrepresented statistic that more intelligent women have fewer children.

If we do not embrace chastity, marriage, the family, sexual ethics, and general ethics go downhill. I regret getting into the overpopulation strand of this thread because that simply won’t happen. As sexual ethics goes downhill, nobody wants to take the time out to have a baby, so the world population decreases.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Once again, I reiterate, LaSant and JMJ, this anti-contraception issue is as deep as Luther. It’s as deep as Augustine, and Justine Martyr. The Catholic Church holds the position it does because, unlike the Protestant’s position, ours is consistently Christian - if a bit stronger. Protestant and Orthodox acceptance of contraception, and for some abortion, is unchristian, unbiblical, and untraditional. It’s just another modern moral heresy - like sola fide, sola scriptura, and sedevaticanism.

But the Church does not. And since Humanae Vitae, I think it highly unlikely it will ever change its policy.

Also note, abortion as a form of contraception was considered a sin, even in early years. Augustine considered abortion a sin (albeit not murder). Abortion was condemned in the Didache, which was written no more than a century after Christ ascended into Heaven. Bede’s Penitential condemned early abortions as sinful, which were considered contraceptive measures in his time.

Indeed, until very recently, first term abortions were considered sinful - but as contraceptive measures, not as murders.

That abortion is still considered sinful is hardly startling news. The implications of such, however, make the Church’s ban on contraception seem consistent.

 

[Warrior1979]

How strange! Real Catholics don’t pick and choose

Well, I guess I’m not a “Real Catholic” then. Nor or you, oh high and haughty judge.